June 18, 2004

50-0 FILES:

Poll: Bush Has the Highest Number of Positive Supporters in Recent History, Kerry the Lowest (George W. Bush: Official Blog, 6/18/04)

A Pew poll out today shows a seven-point shift in President Bush's direction in the election and rising confidence in the mission in Iraq. Furthermore, the poll confirms something we've suspected for a long time, while President Bush's grassroots overwhelmingly supports him because of his leadership and positive agenda, an unusually low number of Kerry supporters are inspired anything having to do with the candidate's agenda or leadership qualities. For Kerry supporters, it's mostly about anger.

73% of President Bush’s supporters say that their choice is a vote "for" him, rather than a vote "against" Kerry, while just 37% of Kerry’s supporters say that their vote is "for" him. Pew has been asking this question since 1988, and Kerry had the lowest percentage of positive support ever while President Bush had the highest.


You really need to check out their chart to get the full impact of the divergence here.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 18, 2004 10:30 AM
Comments

The poll confirms conventional wisdon, which IS often right, after all. Not too many voters are much inspired by Lurch, er, Kerry:

http://www.addamsfamily.com/

And Bush has the conservative/Republican base vote absolutely locked.

Funny thing about this Pew outfit, though. They had Dukakis practically selecting drapes for the Oval Office about this time in 1988. Mikey the Greek has a +19 pro/anti margin (okay) and a +13 lead on Bush Sr. in the prez preference poll (more than okay).

Somethin' happened on the way to D.C. Maybe Mike's relatively soft pro/anti numbers showed that he wasn't the most inspiring guy around. And whaddaya know, he wasn't.

Posted by: Casey Abell at June 18, 2004 1:57 PM

One other thing about the Pew numbers. They seem to bias significantly towards the Democrat prez candidate. In 1992, 1996 and 2000 their final numbers pretty sharply overestimated the Democrat's margin of victory in the popular vote. In 1988 their final poll called the margin about right in the Repub's favor.

Maybe it's because they used registered voters instead of likely voters. But the misses in 1992 and 1996, in particular, seem too large for that explanation alone.

Posted by: Casey Abell at June 18, 2004 2:21 PM

Do I sense a tidal shift, with the surge starting to build?

Posted by: jd watson at June 18, 2004 2:32 PM

Perhaps Perot is to explain the aberrations in 92 and 96 casey.

Posted by: Scof at June 18, 2004 4:02 PM

The Democrats would actually be in better shape had Dean won the early primaries: the Republicans probably would be complacent, and Dean would be asking questions (or making demands) that Bush would eventually have to respond to. But Kerry is turning into a faint odor, borne away by the wind.

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 18, 2004 10:59 PM

Dean would lose too, but by less. He'd negate Nader.

Posted by: oj at June 19, 2004 8:21 AM
« DOESN'T HOPING FOR GERMANY SET THE BAR TOO LOW: | Main | 60-40 NATION: »